Is existence a predicate?
If not, is the Kantian noumenal world - which we can no nothing of beyond its existence - simply superfluous metaphysics? Has Kant made a really substantial advance on the Cartesian position?
>>1420969
go to askphilosophy in reddit, they might help you.
this is the worst place in the internet for asking about kant
>>1420969
How do we know of the noumenal world exists?
The confusion comes because Kant says existence is not a "*real* predicate." Obviously in the statement "God exists," existence is a quality that modifies the subject, i.e., a predicate. I don't know how it is in German but our manner of speaking in English means we treat 'existence' the word like a predicate.
But the real question has become almost meaningless from a post-Modern perspective. Existence not being a "real predicate" means that to exist is not a positive quality of some object but is a pre-condition of that object in some 'pure' ontology, which we have no real reason to believe in.
>>1420988
Because, the Unknown must arise from somewhere.
That which is phenomenal, as Kant would have it, is accessible to apperception, internal recognition.
But where does this phenomenal content arise if not from a greater, un-perceived reality, the noumenon?
>>1420995
>modifies
But Kant says that existence adds literally nothing to a concept.
>>1421012
Yeah I know? That's the whole argument. I'm saying, in colloquial English usage, when you utter the phrase "_____ exists," the word "exists" is a grammatical predicate, it's a quality of the subject of the sentence. This is true grammatically even if it's not true "ontologically," as Kant would have it.
